CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 11 juillet 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sD046859D { width:101.74pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sAB95A5CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       SECOND SECTION CASE OF SHELKOVENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 4041/16 and 20 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 11 July 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Shelkovenkov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Lorraine Schembri Orland , President ,   Frédéric Krenc,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 20 June 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Russian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. JURISDICTION 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos.   40792/10 and 2   others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17   January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   11 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies, namely their arrest in relation to the dispersal of these assemblies and their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article   11 of the Convention. 8.     The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevičius and Others v.   Lithuania [GC], no.   37553/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v.   Turkey , no.   74552/01, ECHR 2006 ‑ XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v.   Moldova , no.   33482/06, 31   March 2009). 9.     In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 11 .     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocols, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. 13 .     Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in Butkevich v. Russia , no.   5865/07, §§   63-65, 13   February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 115-31, 10   April 2018, and Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.   72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8   October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20   September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO); and Martynyuk v.   Russia , no.   13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8   October 2019, relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints under the Convention or Protocols to it. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see in particular Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   25809/17 and 14 others, §   22, 4   October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16   September 2022; Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   11 of the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 July 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Lorraine Schembri Orland   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention (disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Name of the public event Location Date Administrative / criminal offence Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     4041/16 25/12/2015 Aleksandr Anatolyevich SHELKOVENKOV 1995   Nikita Olegovich TRUBITSYN 1988   Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Rally to support I.   Dadin   Moscow 17/11/2015 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 5 days of detention (Shelkovenkov)     3 days of detention (Trubitsyn) Moscow City Court 20/11/2015   Moscow City Court 20/11/2015 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings against each applicant. 5,000 to be paid to each applicant     13061/18 14/03/2018 Andrey Sergeyevich PIVOVAROV 1981 Golubok Sergey Aleksandrovich Vilnius Opposition rally   St Petersburg 28/01/2018   Protest rally   Moscow 01/07/2020   Rally against the constitutional amendments Moscow 15/07/2020   Rally for fair elections in St   Petersburg   St Petersburg 01/05/2019 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO         article 20.2 § 2 of CAO       article 20.2 § 3 of CAO           article 20.2 § 2 of CAO 25 days of detention         10 days of detention       14 days of detention           10 days of detention St   Petersburg City Court 05/03/2018       Moscow City Court 21/09/2020     Moscow City Court 08/09/2020         St Petersburg City Court 02/05/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 01/05/2019 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of administrative-offence proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – immediate execution of the sentence of detention in 2019; an appeal against the conviction had no suspensive effect. 6,000         37806/19 09/07/2019 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg     59645/18 06/12/2018 Yuliya Viktorovna SHEVCHENKO 1999 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Opposition rally   Cheboksary 05/05/2018                     Rally to support A.   Navalnyy   Cheboksary 31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO         and   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours of community work       and   20 hours of community work         fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 08/06/2018   and   Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 08/06/2018     Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 16/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in three sets of administrative-offence proceedings.     4,000     4737/19 05/12/2018 Tatyana Alekseyevna PAMFILOVA 1999 Korchilova Kseniya Mikhaylovna St Petersburg Opposition rally   St Petersburg 05/05/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO         fine of RUB   10,000       St Petersburg City Court 05/06/2018     Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 05/05/2018 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report. 4,000     7131/19 21/01/2019 Vladimir Mikhaylovich SINYAKOV 1948 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Opposition rally   Kaliningrad 05/05/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Kaliningrad Regional Court 09/08/2018   3,500     7588/19 16/01/2019 Timur Gabdelbaryyevich GATAULLIN 1986 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Rally against the pension reform   Kazan 09/09/2018   Rally to support A.   Navalnyy   Kazan 31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO           article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000           fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 19/12/2018     Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 05/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 09-10/09/2018 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings in 2018. 4,000     7931/19 16/01/2019 Vadim Olegovich STEPANOV 1995 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Rally against the pension reform   Kazan 09/09/2018 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO 4 days of detention Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 18/09/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 09-10/09/2018 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – immediate execution of the sentence of detention; an appeal against the conviction had no suspensive effect. 5,000     8487/19 04/02/2019 Mikhail Yuryevich POSTNIKOV 1991 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Rally against the pension reform   Kazan 09/09/2018 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO 10 days of detention Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 29/12/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 27-28/12/2018 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling an offence report in relation to the rally on 09/09/2018,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – immediate execution of the sentence of detention; an appeal against the conviction had no suspensive effect. 5,000   11466/19 02/02/2019 Danila Andreyevich SARTAKOV 1996 Bederson Olga Sergeyevna Perm Opposition rally   Perm 05/05/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 30 hours of community work Perm Regional Court 02/08/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   24946/19 09/04/2019 Bogdan Vladimirovich LEVIN 1998 Olenichev Maksim Vladimirovich St Petersburg Rally against the pension reform   St Petersburg 09/09/2018 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 St Petersburg City Court 09/10/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - 09-10/09/2018 detention in a police station after compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   25368/19 30/04/2019 Leonid Gennadyevich MURZAYEV 1970 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Rally against the pension reform   Perm 09/09/2018 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO 180 hours of community work Perm Regional Court 31/10/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings. 3,500   7962/21 26/12/2020 Sergey Vladimirovich FOMIN 1983 Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna Moscow Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow 27/07/2019 article 20.2 § 3 of CAO fine of RUB   30,000 Moscow City Court 26/06/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 24/12/2019 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   28057/21 17/05/2021 Danil Sergeyevich MESHCHERYAKOV 1991 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Rally to support A.   Navalnyy   Barnaul 23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Altay Regional Court 16/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 23-24/01/2021 detention in a police station for and after compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   28058/21 17/05/2021 Dmitriy Vladimirovich BUDKOV 1990 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Rally to support A.   Navalnyy   Barnaul 31/01/2021       article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Altay Regional Court 25/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings. 3,500   28112/21 17/05/2021 Aleksey Aleksandrovich YELYSHEV 1998 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Rally to support A.   Navalnyy   Barnaul 23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Altay Regional Court 16/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 23-24/01/2021 detention in a police station for and after compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings. 4,000   28117/21 17/05/2021 Sofya Andreyevna BELOUSOVA 1997 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Rally to support A.   Navalnyy   Barnaul 23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Altay Regional Court 17/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 23-24/01/2021 detention in a police station for and after compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 4,000   28154/21 17/05/2021 Vladislav Sergeyevich GERASIMOV 2000 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Rally to support A.   Navalnyy   Barnaul 31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Altay Regional Court 10/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative8offence proceedings. 3,500   30208/21 12/05/2021 Danil Yuryevich SHTIL 1997 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Rally to support A.   Navalnyy   Barnaul 31/01/2021     article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Altay Regional Court 17/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings. 3,500   30462/21 11/05/2021 Dmitriy Vladimirovich MELNIKOV 1967 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Rally to support A.   Navalnyy   Barnaul 31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Altay Regional Court 23/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 01/02/2021 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings. 4,000   40294/21 27/07/2021 Andrey Vitalyevich KATAMANOV 1996 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Rally to support A.   Navalnyy   Barnaul 23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Altay Regional Court 03/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings. 3,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.